ter.

6

Hoc est corpus meum,' and the proper argument of that; but brings nothing from the words of St. Paul in this chapBut to make up this also he does corrodere,'' scrape together' some things extrinsical to the words of this authority; as, 1. That the literal sense is to be presumed, unless the contrary be proved ;-which is very true: but I have evidently proved the contrary concerning the words of institution; and for the words in this chapter, if the literal sense be preferred, then the bread remains after consecration, because it is called bread. 2. So the primitive saints expounded it'-which how true it is, I shall consider in his own place. 3. "The Apostle calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh, proposes to them a more excellent banquetbut it were not more excellent, if it were only a figure of Christ's body;"-so Bellarmine: which is a fit cover for such a dish; for, 1. We do not say, that, in the sacrament, we only receive the sign and figure of Christ's body; but all the real effects and benefits of it. 2. If we had, yet it is not very much better than blasphemy, to say that the apostles had not prevailed upon that account. For if the very figure and sacrament of Christ's body be better than sacrifices offered to devils, the Apostle had prevailed, though this sentence were true, that in the sacrament we receive only the figure. And thus I have, for all that is said against it, made it apparent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence.

3. There is one thing more, which, out of Scripture, they urge for the corporal presence, viz. "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body:" and, "He shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Where they observe, that they, that eat unworthily, do yet eat Christ's body; because how else could they be guilty of it, and condemned for not discerning it?

4. To this I answer many things. 1. St. Paul does not say, "He that eateth and drinketh Christ's body and blood unworthily," &c., but indefinitely, "He that eateth and drinketh," &c., yet it is probable he would have said so, if it had been a proper form of speech, because, by so doing, it would have laid a greater load upon them. 2. Where St. Paul does not speak indefinitely, he speaks most clearly

against the article in the Roman sense; for he calls it wornριον Κυρίου, “ the cup of the Lord, and ἄρτον τοῦτον, - this bread,' and, He that eats this bread unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ':' and now these comminatory phrases are quitted from their pretence, but yet have their proper consideration: therefore, 3. Not discerning' the Lord's body, is, not separating it' from profane and common usages, not treating it with addresses proper to the mystery. To which phrase Justin gives light in these words:

Οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινον πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, "We do not receive it as common bread and common drink;" but τὴν δι ̓ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ' αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, &c. nourishment made eucharistical, or blessed, by the word of prayer;" and so it is the body and blood of the Lord. 4. It is the body of the Lord in the same sense here as in the words of institution, which I have evinced to be exegetical, sacramental, and spiritual; and, by despising the sacrament of it, we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. "Reus erit corporis et sanguinis Christi, qui tanti mysterii sacramentum despexerit," saith St. Jerome. And it is in this, as Severianus said concerning the statues of Theodosius broken in despite by the Antiochians: “Tan ἄψυχος, τοῦ βασιλέως εἰκόνα φέρουσα, τὴν ἑαυτῆς ὕβριν εἰς βασιλέα ἀνάγει: aváyε: "If you abuse the king's image, the affront relates to your prince."-5. The unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ; not naturally, for that cannot now be; and nothing is a greater probation of the spiritual sense of the words in this place, than this, which they would entice into their party; for Christ's body is glorified, and not capable of natural injury: but the evil communicant is 'guilty of the body and blood of Christ;' just as relapsing Christians are said by the same apostles, to crucify the Lord of life again, and put him to an open shame,' which, I suppose, they cannot do naturally or corporally. One is as the other, that is, both are tropical or figurative.

5. These are all that they pretend from Scripture; and all these are nothing to their purpose; but now, besides what I have already said, I shall bring arguments from other scriptures, which will not so easily be put off.

SECTION IX.

Arguments from other Scriptures proving Christ's real Presence in the Sacrament to be only spiritual, not natural. 1. THE first is taken from those words of our blessed Saviour; "Whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast forth into the draught";" meaning, that all food that is taken by the mouth, hath for his share the fortune of the belly; and indeed, manducation and ejection are equally diminutions of any perfect thing; and because it cannot, withont blasphemy, be spoken, that the natural body of Christ ought or can suffer ejection, neither can it suffer manducation. To this Bellarmine' weakly answers, that these words of Christ are only true of that which is taken to nou- 、 rish the body;' which saying of his is not true; for if it be taken to purge the body, or to make the body sick, or to make it lean, or to minister to lust, or to chastise the body, as those who in penances have masticated aloes and other bitter gums, yet still it is cast into the draught. 2. But suppose his meaning true, yet this argument will not so be put off; because although the end of receiving the blessed sacrament is not to nourish the body; yet that it does nourish the body, is affirmed by Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and others; of which I have already given an account*. To which I here add the plain words of Rabanus: "Illud [corpus Christi] in nos convertitur, dum id manducamus et bibimus:" "That body is changed into us, when we eat it and drink it ;" and therefore, although it hath a higher purpose, yet this also cannot be avoided. 3. Either we may manducate the accidents only, or else the substance of bread, or the substance of Christ's body. If we manducate only the accidents', then how do we eat Christ's body? If we manducate bread, then it is capable of all the natural alterations, and it cannot be denied. But if we manducate Christ's body after a natural manner, what worse thing is it, that it descends into the guts, than that it goes into the stomach; to be cast forth, than to be torn in pieces with the teeth, as I have proved that it is by the Roman doctrine? Now I argue thus: If we eat Christ's. natural body, we eat it either naturally or spiritually: if it

h St. Matt. xv. 17.

m

i Lib. 1. Euch. c. 14. sect. Resp. cum Algero. k Sect. 5. n.9. 1'H dè Troph Tò σãμu rò ärtov. Aristot. lib 3. de Anim. cap. 12. m Sect. 3. n. 6.

6

be eaten only spiritually, then it is spiritually digested, and is spiritual nourishment, and puts on accidents and affections spiritual. But if the natural body be eaten naturally, then what hinders it from affections and transmutations natural? 4. Although Algerus, and out of him Bellarmine, would have Christians stop their ears against this argument (and so would I against that doctrine, of which these fearful conclusions are unavoidable consequents), yet it is disputed in the Summa Angelica,' and an instance or case put which to my sense seems no inconsiderable argument to reprove the folly of this doctrine: for, saith he, what if the species pass indigested into the belly from the stomach? he answers; that they were not meat if they did not nourish; and therefore it is probable, as Boetius says, that the body of our Lord does not go into the draught, though the species do. And yet it is determined by the gloss on the canon law", that as long as the species remain uncorrupted, the holy body is there under those species; and therefore may be vomited; and consequently ejected all ways by which the species can pass unaltered. "Eousque progreditur corpus, quousque species,' said Harpsfield, in his disputation at Oxford. If these things be put together, viz., the body is there so long, as the species are uncorrupted: and the species may remain uncorrupted till they be cast upwards or downwards, as in case of sickness: it follows that in this case, which is a case easily contingent, by their doctrine, the holy body must pass in latrinam.' And what then? it is to be adored as a true sacrament, though it come from impure places, though it be vomited so said Vasquez; and it is the prevailing opinion in their church. Add to this, that if this nourishment does not descend and cleave to the guts of the priest, it is certain that God does not hear his prayers: for he is enjoined by the Roman missal, published by authority of the council of Trent and the command of Pope Pius the Fourth, to pray, Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et sanguis, quem potavi, adhæreat visceribus meis;" "Let thy body, O Lord, which I have taken, and the blood which I have drunk, cleave to my bowels." It seems indeed they would have it go no further, to prevent the inconveniences of the present argument; but certain it is, that if they intended it for a figurative speech, " De Consecrat. dist. 2. c. Si per negligentiam. Glos. ibid. o In 3. t. 3. d. 195. n. 46.

66

it was a bold one, and not so fitted for edification, as for an objection. But to return. This also was the argument of Origen: "Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os, in ventrem abit, et in secessum ejicitur, et ille cibus, qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem, juxta id, quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, et in secessum ejicitur :—et hæc quidem de typico symbolicoque corpore."-He plainly distinguishes the material part from the spiritual in the sacrament, and affirms, that " according to the material part, that meat that is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, enters into the mouths, descends into the belly, and goes forth in the natural ejection. And this is only true of the typical and symbolical body." Now, besides that it affirms the words of our blessed Saviour to have effect in the sacrament, he affirms, that the material part, the type and symbols, are the body of Christ, that is, his body is present in a typical and symbolical manner. This is the plain and natural sense of the words of Origen. But he must not mean what he means, if he says any thing, in another place, that may make for the Roman opinion. And this is their way of answering objections brought from the fathers; they use to oppose words to words, and conclude they must mean their meaning; or else they contradict themselves. And this trick Bellarmine uses frequently, and especially Cardinal Perron, and from them the lesser writers: and so it happens in this present argument; for other words of Origen are brought to prove he inclined to the Roman opinion. But I demand, 1. Are the words more contradictory, if they both be drawn to a spiritual sense, than if they be both drawn to a natural? 2. Though we have no need to make use of it, yet it is no impossible thing that the fathers should contradict one another and themselves too; as you may see pretended violently by Cardinal Perron in his answer to King James. 3. But why must all sheaves bow to their sheaf, and all words be wrested to their fancy, when there are no words any where pretended from them, but with less wresting than these must suffer, they will be brought to speak against them, or at least nothing for them? But let us see what other words Origen hath, by which we must expound these. 4. Origen says, that "the Christian people drink the blood of Christ, and the flesh of the Word of God is true food." What then? so say we too; but it is P In cap. xv. St. Matt.

q St. Matt. xv. 17.